Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires

These fires in Cali are epic. Thousands of residents and some high ranking celebrities have returned to their homes to find melted cars and piles of ash.



After Trumps rather inflammatory tweet… I thought I might dig into this forestry issue to see what’s really the cause.

Turns out… the mortality rate for California trees started shooting through the roof. 66 Million trees since 2010, with a large bulk of that being in the last couple of years. This caused a buuuuunnnnccch of deadwood. To some, that poses a serious fire risk, to others that deadwood has become an ecosystem that some groups fight to protect.



Looking at it rationally… a bunch of super dry dead wood sitting around is kindling. Plain and simple. And thats a hazard.

Clear it out. No big deal right? Wrong.

In comes the conservationist screwing up your plan to take the wildfire risk down a notch.

“Hey man, you get rid of the dead wood, and you lose the native bark beetle. The beetles are food for the Woodpeckers. The Woodpeckers peck the $h1t outta that dead wood and make homes for all manner of creature including the insanely cute flying squirrel. “



And here we are. The irony is that there is some debate over what came first... the bark beetles or the dead trees. Some call them a pestilence, but they are powerless against it... so if the little furry dude above gets more homes as a chain reaction then I'd say thats a win in most peoples eyes. But, yeah, that fire risk does suck. Cuz that $h1t wants to buuuurrrnnnn.

I think the scenario Trump illustrated was..

“Hey, we give you guys millions and millions of dollars every year. Get those forests in tip top shape and reduce the risk of wildfires. Don’t care how you do it, just do it. Heres the cash, thats on you.”

Now, whether they had enough funding isn’t even the issue because they can’t even seem to quit arguing over the beetles.



Obviously clearing the forests of dead debris is just ONE of many different things that could be done… but it’s obvious that this strategy is at a standstill. Those squirrels are ridiculous.


Further Reading -
Do Dead or Dying Trees Raise Wildfire Risk?
Bark Beetles Ravaging Drought Stricken Forests

a reply to: MarkOfTheV
I think I may have flagged this prematurly.

You have to manage the forests - freakin' wood beetles be damned.

You cut the timber, crop it, graze it - or watch it burn.

THAT is Mother nature.

a reply to: silo13

I think I may have flagged this prematurly.

You can fix that.

We've had serious issues with the Mountain Pine Beetle here in Alberta and B.C. up in Canada. Alberta started an extremely aggressive campaign against the beetle. Massive and expensive undertaking.

This project included sending out surveyors all over N.Alberta to find infestations and mark the areas so the dead patches of forest could be logged or put under controlled burn.

As on of the surveyors I made a ton of money in just under 3 years. Averaged about $30 000 a month for 6 months out of each year.

The results were exceptional. We've had fires of course but nowhere near what we would have had.

Our neighbor to the west, British Columbia, invested next to no resources to combat this problem and all but refused to co-operate with my provincial government on the problem.

The end result? My province largely avoided the thousands of hectares of dead wood that would explode into massive wildfires. Like I said, we had some but not too bad and the big one we had had little to do with the Beetle. Alberta also has a robust logging industry (and tree-planting industry) which has resulted in extensive fire breaks and clearing out of old growth.

Our western neighboring on the other hand has a logging industry that is knee capped by environmental nazis and city dwellers that think 100 trees is a "forest". And as I said did nothing to combat the beetle.

Their idiocy resulted in 4 straight years of massive wildfires that have completely ravaged that beautiful province and ruined my summers because of the smoke.

The moronic morons in charge there never seem to learn their lesson.

The sad thing is that if they had responsible logging practices instead of insane regulations the species that they didnt want affected would have adapted and moved to where logging wasnt happening. BUT, because of their idiocy all those species are probably burnt to a crisp.

The absolute refusal to understand the consequences of their stupidity has destroyed far more eco systems and animals than logging ever would have.

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: MarkOfTheV
I think I may have flagged this prematurly.

You have to manage the forests - freakin' wood beetles be damned.

You cut the timber, crop it, graze it - or watch it burn.

THAT is Mother nature.

Right? Conservation or stewardship?? Mitigation or adaption??? First or second-order policies?!

I never got a straight answer, but I tried many a times to get a straight answer from him...ironically (if you knew him), he lost his second home in the Rockies — way back in 2007-8 — to a resultant pine bettle fire.

Bruce and His GAMS-Programmed FASOM

Me??

Oh thats such a responsibility, thanks I will use that power wisely.

Good day.

a reply to: Carcharadon

I am in B.C. and am beyond sick of this myself.

It really is all due to liberal lefty democrat fools, that the summers have become unlivable here.

These people really have no idea how the world works...and they are the ones screaming about climate change and demanding that we enact more of this.

Basically they have declared war with normal smart folk..they are not fit to govern...and they want us all to be scorned and removed because they all know better.

Most dangerous group of idiots the world has ever seen...time to put a stop to it.

a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Despite the unfortunate deaths, there is some good to come of this.

Believe it or not some species of plants rely on wildfires to germinate, the intense heat cracks open the seeds and the dried foliage turns into soil, and the circle of life continues. However the head honchos in California really dropped the ball on this, there should have been controlled burning months ago, sure it wouldn't have stopped the fire but it would have softened the blow and would've allowed plants to germinate after the fire season is over.

I fear for the area i live in might be in trouble, I'm from the southern hemisphere, we are going through el nino and summer is coming, still no burn offs... Yikes. While Hurricanes have more destructive power, wildfires have deadly speed. I dare say many of the lost souls failed to heed to warnings of the officials, Trust me if seen them in action-if the authorities tell you to get out now, you get the eff out. With hurricanes you have a few days notice, with wildfires you have minutes.

At least they got rid of the beetles and flying squirrels without using pesticides. Brush is cleared and lots of jobs for illegals.

WIN WIN WIN



The idiot should be fined for leaving an old bronco behind. Worth more than his house probably.

how many beetles and squirrels are now dead because of this fire?
maybe if the questions is framed that way, these idiot activists will finally wake up and stop being the cause of this very problem, i doubt they care about celebrities houses being destroyed anyway.

a reply to: Carcharadon

You see things in a logical manner. Most leftists have no ability to be rational . I understand the need for dead trees for certain wildlife. Maybe if certain tracts of dead trees were left standing, and a large fire break was maintained around them, there could be habit for the wildlife that needs them while reducing the chances of a fire spreading. Like you said, the wildlife and their habitat are now burned to a crisp. I pray for all in this horrible nightmare.

originally posted by: mikell
At least they got rid of the beetles and flying squirrels without using pesticides. Brush is cleared and lots of jobs for illegals.

WIN WIN WIN



The idiot should be fined for leaving an old bronco behind. Worth more than his house probably.

I was going to say something about that Bronco but decided to wait and see if anyone else also noticed that.
Damn shame......

and just think those that have created the perfect fires (the so called environmentalists), are the same ones that are wanting to deal with the so called human caused climate change. these people are truly dangerous, both to normal people, but also to the environment they are so intent on protecting. the fact is this is why these people so concerned with the unproven theory, a theory many feel is based upon a poorly built house of cards of bad data, wanting, and even trying to "fix" it, quite literally scare the piss out of me. just take a look at these fires as an example of how badly their good intentions can cause far more harm than good. and if they can so badly mess up something as simple and basic as forest management, how much worse could it be trying to fix or control something so complicated as weather and climate?

these horrendous fires are the direct result of people who think they are right. and anyone who believes different is wrong, and possibly even needing to be dealt with. and i'll be honest, in the most part their hearts really are in the right place. and they are honestly trying to do good. but as most intelligent people are aware, good intentions do not necessarily mean doing the right thing. we even say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" because we know this. there is even another saying, "you can't see the forest for the trees". which paints a good picture of such people. they are so concerned with saving certain species and such. that not only do they endanger other species to do so, but in some cases even cause great harm to the species they are wanting to help. because they are so myopically focused on that one thing they fail to see anything else. one part of nature is so inter connected with everything that this myopic view is harmful because you have to take everything into account, and just not this and that one thing. and that by ignoring everything else what you do to help harms other aspects and in the end quite likely that one or two things you are concentrating on. and we see this all the time with liberal ideals, especially when they are animal/nature lovers. like those who would rather see an entire species go extinct due to over population than to allow people to hunt, to keep populations stable at a sustainable level. just as we currently try so hard to protect forests by putting out every little fire and making a huge almost unstoppable and destructive fire far more likely.

the simple fact is that we should NOT be putting out forest fires at all. in fact only trying to protect things such as houses and such, leaving the rest to naturally burn as part of the normal life cycle. if we were to do so, once nature stabilizes from the human interference, these fires would not be near as bad. and if a species get wiped out, that is nature at work. doing as it has been doing for thousands, or depending on your belief millions, or even billions of years. in fact we should even question if we would be doing the right thing by protecting different species by protecting them in things like zoos. which could be used to restart or help out the natural population. or by doing so, may we actually be doing more harm than good?

yep why not cut all the forrests by the ground to prevent forrest-fires … at least you have than ground for houses ...win win situation!